1. This case raises important questions of federal law involving application of the bar against second or successive federal petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Nevada Supreme Court rejected Witter's theory that the correction of an error in his judgment involving only the removal of an improper, undefined award of restitution reopened Witter's opportunity to challenge his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted sexual assault with the use of a deadly weapon, and burglary. But the Ninth Circuit, relying on its own precedent extending this Court's decision in Magwood v. Patterson, 566 U.S. 320 (2010) indicated that the change to the judgment resulted in entry of a new judgment for purposes of federal habeas review, thereby allowing Witter to pursue a second in time federal habeas petition without satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

2. At least one judge of the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Ninth Circuit's precedent applying Magwood conflicts with the principles that underly the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See, e.g., Scott v. Asuncion, 737 Fed. App'x. 348, 349-50 (Christen, J. concurring); see also Sivak v. Christensen, No. 19-35713, 2022 WL 118638 at **2-3 (9th Cir. 2022) (Christen, J. concurring in the judgement). And she has expressly identified the need for this Court's intervention. Scott, 737 Fed. App'x at 350 ("Until the Supreme Court clarifies what constitutes a 'new judgment' under Magwood, any new state-court judgment, as defined by state law, will allow a petitioner to circumvent AEDPA's bar on second or successive habeas petitions."). Moreover, this issue is the subject of a long-standing split of authority. See, e.g., Lesko v. Sec'y Pennsylvania Dep' of Corr., 34 F.4th 211, 223-25 (3d 2022).

Whether a state court judgment modifying a ministerial error in a criminal judgment constitutes a 'new judgment' that allows a petitioner to file a second federal habeas corpus petition under Magwood v. Patterson